3. Corcuera had no authority to make the new imposition; moreover, the imposition of a new gabel is justified only when an urgent and pressing necessity arises, and the sovereign cannot maintain himself or carry on his military operations with his usual income.
4. If the tribute or new imposition is not justified by urgent necessity, it is illegal.
5. The imposition made by Corcuera is illegal, as it was made without any compelling necessity. It is also disproportionate, because it is equal for both the rich and the poor Sangley, discriminating not one whit between them.
6. Corcuera’s reason for making the new imposition was to punish the Sangleys for their insurrection. He should first have consulted with his Majesty in regard to it.
7. It is not a sufficient justification for the new imposition to say that it was for the purpose of fortification; for those fortifications built across the river near Tondo by virtue of that imposition have been torn down, because they would prove a menace to the Spaniards in case of hostile attack, for the enemy might find them a base whence to carry on operations against Manila. The king’s permission is expressly necessary for the erection of new fortifications and public works, and Corcuera did not have that permission.
8. It is true, however, that a governor may repair the existing fortifications without express permission of the king, although he is forbidden to construct new fortifications.
9. It is also true that all persons must contribute to the expense of repairing the fortifications; and consequently the new imposition might be tolerated for that reason. “Therefore his Majesty (whom may God preserve) had assigned three thousand pesos for the fortification and repair of the walls of this city, from the monopoly of the playing-cards[3]—which is paid every year, according to the tenor of its establishment. Therefore, his Majesty having succored that necessity and made preparations for that expense, with a sufficient and sure sum of money, the little justification for that new imposition can be seen.”
10 and 11. “Again, supposing that his Majesty had not prepared for that necessity, which is a compelling one, and it became necessary to impose a tax and contribution for the repair and equipment of the walls: it ought to be imposed solely on the citizens and inhabitants of this city, according to the means and power of each one, and not among the foreigners and transients like the Sangleys, who, coming to trade this year, return the following year to China, where they have their houses, families, and children.” That imposition is therefore a burden on the Sangleys.
12. “It is clear, then, that as that imposition, so grievous to the Sangleys, for the fortification and repair of the walls of this city of Manila is not of advantage to them, as they are foreigners, but on the contrary is very injurious to them, and introduced as a mark of hatred toward them, they should not be obliged to pay that contribution and assessment; but [this obligation would fall on] only the citizens and those interested, for the repair, shelter, and defense of their persons and patrimonies, in case that his Majesty had not provided the said three thousand pesos from the monopoly of the playing-cards for that purpose. Besides, that contribution for the repair of the walls demands consideration of the means and ability of those making it and should be in proportion thereto.” Since the new imposition is equal for all the Sangleys, rich and poor, that just proportion is destroyed.
13. Even if those newly-imposed licenses had all the justification and security that law can give, and his Majesty (may God preserve him) had ordered them to be imposed, so zealous a minister as Don Sebastian ought to have represented to his royal Council of the Indias that these Sangleys have been made to pay for the privilege of remaining in these islands the annual sum of eight pesos five reals since the year 610. That brings his Majesty, according to the number of the Sangleys now, 120,000 pesos annually. In the years 638 and 39, when there were twenty-five or thirty thousand Sangleys (which was the time of the insurrection), those licenses amounted to more than 230,000 pesos. Since that sum is so considerable, a risk was being incurred if they were burdened with another imposition; for they might, oppressed by so many exactions and assessments, abandon the commerce of those islands, even though they perceived so much gain in them, and his Majesty would because of these licenses lose that established commerce.... Representing those reasons and inconveniences to his Majesty, he ought to have suspended the execution of this measure until, the matter having been conferred over in the royal Council of the Indias, his Majesty should decree according to his pleasure. All the more [should this be done] in lands and kingdoms recently acquired, as are the Indias—where for many years after the conquest no alcabala, gabel, or other contribution was imposed or asked until the year 574, when general decrees were promulgated ordering that the payment of the alcabala be introduced into the kingdoms of Piru and Nueva España, and that with great moderation and mildness. Don Francisco de Toledo, viceroy of Piru,[4] suspended the execution of the decree for many years, until the Marques de Cañete[5] ordered, in the time of his government, the collection of that duty, by virtue of a new decree which he held. Although, as is a fact, the excise duties are a royal right, so ancient and accepted, and neither the Indians nor the Spaniards, their colonists and conquistadors, paid his Majesty anything, the suspension of [their collection by] Don Francisco de Toledo was regarded as advisable, until pressing necessities compelled more severe exactions.